# C_2019164EN.01001102.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena (Italy) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Azienda USL di Modena v Comune di Sassuolo

(Case C-26/19)

(2019/C 164/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda USL di Modena

Defendant: Comune di Sassuolo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23 [of 14 March 2011], which allows Italian national health service bodies an exemption from IMU [single municipal tax] for real estate which they own and whose intended purpose is exclusively the performance of statutory tasks, consistent with Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’, if that national legislation is interpreted as meaning that the tax advantage is also available to an AUSL [a local public body providing healthcare services] which leased a property to a public-private commercial company (51 % owned by that body) which, in that property, provides healthcare services in competition with other hospitals that are entirely privately owned, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23 [of 14 March 2011], which allows Italian national health service bodies an exemption from IMU [single municipal tax] for real estate which they own and whose intended purpose is exclusively the performance of statutory tasks, consistent with Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’, if that national legislation is interpreted as meaning that the tax advantage is also available to an AUSL [a local public body providing healthcare services] which leased a property to a public-private commercial company (51 % owned by that body) which, in that property, provides healthcare services in competition with other hospitals that are entirely privately owned, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market?

| 2. | Does the Italian tax ruling provided for by Article 11 of Law No 212 [of 27 July 2000] — which precludes an interpretation of Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23, by analogy with the case-law of the Italian Supreme Court concerning the ICI [Municipal Tax on Immovable Property], to the effect that the IMU exemption does not apply to an AUSL when the property is used by a public limited company in which that public body also has a holding and which provides healthcare services there in competition with other entirely privately owned commercial companies which also provide healthcare services, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market — comply with the Treaty, specifically Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Italian tax ruling provided for by Article 11 of Law No 212 [of 27 July 2000] — which precludes an interpretation of Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23, by analogy with the case-law of the Italian Supreme Court concerning the ICI [Municipal Tax on Immovable Property], to the effect that the IMU exemption does not apply to an AUSL when the property is used by a public limited company in which that public body also has a holding and which provides healthcare services there in competition with other entirely privately owned commercial companies which also provide healthcare services, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market — comply with the Treaty, specifically Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’?

---